  Crystal Member Username: Crystal Post Number: 388 Registered: 05-2007 |
Take a look at this great MODIS picture taken today, and be sure to read the accompanying text. The cloud streets are especially beautiful! http://earthobservatory.nasa.g ov/IOTD/view.php?id=37261 | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2906 Registered: 08-2007 |
Wow. I drove through the aftermath of this storm in South and North Carolina yesterday from south of Spartanburg, SC almost to Asheville, NC. I'm sure glad I missed all that fun. There were still foot high snowbanks on the roadsides, and in some places, the lanes on I-26 were still icepacked and slippery. The trees were wearing lovely coats of shiny white snow. The sun was shining and it was close to 30 degrees. I only saw about six vehicles in the ditch, which surprised me. Maybe that 15 mile traffic jam slowed everybody down enough to avoid the ditches. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4483 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^And you probably didn't even stop at the Beacon Drive-In in Spartanburg. Shame on you. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2907 Registered: 08-2007 |
I will next time, now that I know about it. I think it was too early for lunch anyway, and I had my dog with me. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4484 Registered: 10-2003 |
I understand that Spartanburg received about 5.5 inches of snow. Ninety miles to the southeast, Columbia received nothing--the air was just warm enough to change the "wintry mix" into a cold drizzle. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2908 Registered: 08-2007 |
I spent the night in Columbia. There was no snow and the wet pavement stayed wet, not frozen. It was just misting for the most part. Spartanburg and north of there looked about the worst next day, at least 5 1/2 inches if not more. Now that I have read the Beacon reviews, I think I will have to go there with several people to eat one of the meals. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4485 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^If you get the chili cheese-a-plenty, don't make any plans for a few hours, other than napping. CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL IT! | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19169 Registered: 11-2006 |
The ice caps are melting, the Polar bears are drowning, New York will be under 20 feet of water momentarily, we are heading into the armageddon that is man made global warming....What? Colder you say? More snow? How can that be? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4487 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-s econd-science/post.cfm?id=cold -winter-doesnt-mean-global-war m-2009-02-12 I know this is from *Scientific* American, but don't let that little "S" word scare you, Doctor. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19176 Registered: 11-2006 |
Waffling back peddle in action. It doesn't help that the conclusions are circumstantial, non scientific, and based on a consensus of heavily coerced "scientists" that have sold their soul and have no integrity. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4488 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: SOURCE? | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19178 Registered: 11-2006 |
Logic...and for specifics, look at Chris Horner's book "Global warming, a politically incorrect guide" and the many many references listed there. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8618 Registered: 02-2007 |
I can't believe you are still touting that thoroughly discredited book, bats. virtually all the references in Horner's book fall into one, or both, of the following categories: 1)circular citations 2)things written by those in the pay of fossil fuel concerns nothing in it stands the scrutiny required for peer review, and the few citations that ARE peer reviewed have been either repudiated by their authors or been proven wrong | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19240 Registered: 11-2006 |
Discredited by whom? | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5382 Registered: 06-2004 |
No one can argue good science about global warming being caused by man. It's junk or "political" science to argue that such a small sampling (~100 years) is representative of a human caused change in a system as old as the Earth, especially given its past history of ice ages. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2920 Registered: 08-2007 |
Who cares what is causing it? If there is something we can do to slow it down, or adapt to it, we need to get on with the job. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4507 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Except climate scientists *aren't* using only the past 100 years for their timeline. Whether natual climate change is occurring or not, industrial pollution and reliance on personal automobiles certainly hasn't helped, has it? | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1775 Registered: 01-2008 |
Many conservatives religiously believe in creationism, and that the Earth is only thousands of years old, and not billions, UNLESS climate change is the topic, then the planet is far too old for current scientific studies to prove that humans have a damaging effect on it...LOL!! But the core issue with conservatives REALLY is the ability for industry to pollute with impunity. Capitalist profit is sacrosanct and must be protected vs a "few" complaints by concerned or affected members of the great unwashed. They will rail about the cost of protecting the environment, but not the effect of pollution and environmental damage, since the former primarily affects capitalists, and the latter affects consumers. Like the US government defending their freedoms, from a conservative point of view, business progress and corporate growth regrettably but necessarily has casualties, both human and environmental. (too bad, so sad) (Message edited by Flanders_field on March 07, 2009) | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19251 Registered: 11-2006 |
You assume that all (or most) religious people are conservative, and that the only issue of importance of concern to the religious is creationism...check your premises, they are wrong. | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 626 Registered: 04-2008 |
"You assume that all (or most) religious people are conservative, and that the only issue of importance of concern to the religious is creationism...check your premises, they are wrong." I have to agree with you. There are some decent leftist religious folk such as the Episcopalians, the Unitarians, and the "Reconciled in Christ" Lutherans. The Quakers would hardly subscribe to the right wing. | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1776 Registered: 01-2008 |
quote: Check your eyes, I did not post any such words (all, most, only) that would support your conclusions. Considering that you are quite capable of intentionally misinterpreting what others post on this board, or will ignore them when confronted, this is not unexpected or unusual behavior, however. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19298 Registered: 11-2006 |
Sorry, your word was "many". Your implication was "most", if not "all". I think you realize this, but feign ignorance as a weak argument. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8632 Registered: 02-2007 |
I think Flanders is intelligent enough to have used "most" if that was what was meant to be implied. an lilpup, they are using data going back tens of thousands of years, which you would know had you ever dared read any of the items I linked to, or if you would dare do your own research instead of relying on stuff spewed out by the infamously anti-science Heartland group and its minions |
